Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

QUAERITUR: Of subdeacons and tunics

Posted on 31 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a deacon reader:

I was in the middle of some research last night and discovered some new tidbits on vestments. More precisely, the difference between a dalmatic and a tunicle. I captured a number of my thoughts on my blog (marques.silvaclan.net). Anyway, here are my questions:

* When celebrating the Extraordinary Form (EF) are the Subdeacons wearing tunicles or dalmatics? [Tunicles or tunics]
* Since the tunicle was abrogated in 1969, presumably because of the suppression of the minor orders, is it still the appropriate vestment for a Subdeacon in the present EF? [Tunicle is the vestment of the subdeacon. If there is a man serving as a subdeacon in a Solemn Mass in the Extraordinary Form, he puts on a tunic.]
* With the ever-growing popularity of the EF, do you think that there is a need to ensure that Deacons are only wearing dalmatics and not tunicles (they seem to have become one and the same)? [Once in a while you can’t tell them apart.]

Sometimes you will see that classy vestments having sleeves with slightly different decoration. For example, one will have two “stripes”, and the other just one. This distinguishes the dalmatic and the tunic. Most older sets will have some distinguishing sign.

Here is a more modern set of solemn Mass vestments. You can see that the dalmatic has two stripes and the tunic one.

dalmatic and tunic

Another example:

Which is which? Easy.

But some sets don’t distinguish, perhaps because pieces were lost or the makers, designers didn’t make a tunic, and the garments are identical. Some more modern sets may have just two dalmatics (both with two stripes)

In that case, as soon as the deacon puts on his garment he is putting on his dalmatic and when the subdeacon puts on his his is putting on his tunic… even though they are identical.

In this shot the vestments are the same, but clearly the guy on right is wearing a dalmatic by the fact that he is the deacon, and the guy on the left is wearing a tunic by the fact that he is subdeacon. It becomes a matter of pure coincidence that the garments are the same.

So too here. If this is a Solemn Mass with the 1962 Missal, one of these guys is wearing a tunic that looks like a dalmatic. If it Novus Ordo… well… if they are both deacons, then I guess they are both dalamtics.

Here you can see which one is the deacon. He’s got more stuff on him.

When a bishop puts on his pontifical vestments, the first one he puts on is the tunic, even though there isn’t any difference between it and the next one he puts on.

Preserved Killick would be able to explain this: “Which when he put’s it on, it’s a tunic, ain’t it, ya grass-combing lubber?”

Think of it this way. When Jack Aubrey, of the celebrated series, while still just a commander took command of a brig-rigged vessel, that vessel became a sloop, by the fact of his being in command.

Clear?

Anyway… the tunic was “suppressed” in 1969? Pah! Piffle, I say!

Let tunic abound. Where ever there be Solemn Masses and, therefore, the role of subdeacon, let that subdeacon wear his tunic with distinction and pride!

And as far as the question of the suppression of the subdeacon is concerned, sure, let’s all read together Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam.

Having read that, I have to ask, when the Holy See gives permission to the Fraternity of St. Peter to ordain subdeacons… what happens? Are they subdeacons or aren’t they? If they are, then I think they should put on the tunic they were ordained in. If they aren’t subdeacons… what are they doing? Pretending to ordain? Would the Holy See sanction a pretend ordination? Unlikely. We have the use of the 1962 Missal. Someone has to fill the role of the subdeacon. When someone does that, he wears the tunic.

This isn’t hard.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged dalmatic, deacon, Ministeria quaedam, subdeacon, tunic
21 Comments

Summorum Pontificum, reforming the reform, and resisting the reform

Posted on 31 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Pope Benedict, in his ongoing effort to heal the rupture that occurred in our worship when a composed, artificial rite was suddenly imposed on the Church, in 2007 put into effect the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, by far surpassing the provisions of Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

This was, on the one hand, an emancipation proclamation and, on the other, a great gift to priests and congregations.

Not all were thrilled. I note in particular some bishops who, now that Summorum Pontificum is in effect, are now eager and willing to implement Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

Too late. They had their chance.

In Ecclesia Dei adflicta, the bishops had much greater authority when it came to the use of the older, traditional books for worship and sacraments. However, even at that time John Paul II, the Sovereign Pontiff, Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, decreed by his Apostolic authority that respect be shown to those who desired the older forms of worship and decreed by his Apostolic authority that the provisions for older forms of worship be generously applied. Read Ecclesia Dei adflicta 6 and 6c.

Go ahead. I’ll wait for you here.

Is that what happened? Was there a generous application? Was there respect?

All of that is in the past, of course. Ecclesia Dei adflicta was ignored. Summorum Pontificum is now in effect.

Just a reminder as to what Summorum Pontificum does. (The Motu Proprio, still only in Latin and Hungarian on the Vatican website, for shame, and the accompanying letter of Benedict XVI.)

The provisions of Summorum Pontificum state that every priest in the Latin Church can say Mass with either the 1962 or 2002 Missale Romanum. If a group of the faithful wants Mass in the older form, they may approach their pastors and their pastors must see to their requests. If the pastor cannot do it himself, the diocesan bishop must help see to their requests. Help … assist…. not block or thwart. The bishop is relieved of the burden of decisions about whether they may have Masses in the older form. Bishops have enough to do, after all, without worrying about something that should be left – according the the principle of subsidiarity – in the hands of priests in trenches. Moreover, the Roman Rite is juridically identified in two forms. If a priest of the Latin Church can say Mass at all, he can say it in either form, say his is office in either form, celebrate sacraments in either form. It is his Rite, after all.

Again, when a group of the faithful request Mass in the older “Extraordinary” form, their needs must be met somehow. The pastor is not to ignore them. If the pastor is unable to help, and not even the bishop can find a good solution for them, the bishop is instructed to contact the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” in Rome for help. The bishops doesn’t get involved in order to say yes or now. At that point the bishop’s role is to help make it happen if the pastor can’t.

So, the bishop gets to help the faithful have Masses in the older form when they are requested and the pastor can’t or doesn’t make it happen. His role is not to give or withhold permission. The pastor of the parish may add celebrations of Mass to the parish schedule. He does not need permission from anyone. Under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum he has the authority to do with on his own.

That is a big change from the time of Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

Under Summorum Pontificum bishops can establish parishes which use exclusively the older liturgical books. Nothing new there. They could do that under Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

That is just a little background.

I posted what was above because I am still hearing about lay people asking the bishop for Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum, and priests asking the bishop for permission to use the 1962 edition. Lay people must first approach their parish priests and priests can just do it.

These provisions given by the Holy Father are part of his effort to heal the rupture in our worship and in our Catholic identity.

Whatever else they might be – like them or not – they are not options. Summorum Pontificum is in effect, not Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

Now to the point.

I see that our friends at Rorate have provided in English something posted on the Italian site Messa in Latino about an Italian bishop, Most Rev. Luigi Negri, Bishop of the Diocese of San Marino – Montefeltro, who has some thoughts about those who have a rigid and inadequate understanding of what Vatican II actually mandated, who resist Pope Benedict and, as a result, resist Summorum Pontificum.

Coming from an Italian bishop this is pretty interesting. Most of the time when we hear about bishops and Summorum Pontificum, we are dealing with English speaking regions, or France.

The piece on Rorate and Messa in Latino is pretty long, but it is worth your attention. I will send you there to read the whole thing. Go spike their stats and tell them Fr. Z sent you!

Here is a taste:

“I agree that the Pope ought to carry on with the ‘reform of the liturgical reform’ of the Council, to use Msgr. Nicola Bux’s expression. But it must be said with extreme clarity that the Pope is making efforts to effect this ‘reform of the reform.’ There exist negative tendencies of resistance, and not merely passive tendencies. The liturgical reform that came after the Council, more often than not, was made up largely of pseudo-interpretations, or else it caused exceptional cases to prevail as the norm: all of which can be seen in a single example, the problem of language or of the distribution of Communion in the hand. The fist of the bishops’ conferences have really and truly struck back against Rome. [“Ci sono stati veri e propri colpi di mano delle Conferenze episcopali nei confronti di Roma”] Certainly, there has been a weakness on the part of the Vatican in their reaction, due probably to the tensions and counter-tensions even within the structures that ought to regulate the exact interpretation and implementation of the Council.

“Now, while keeping in mind these influential facts, of which the Church’s government ought to take a realistic accounting, the choices lie between a socialization of the Liturgy—that is, an adequate functioning of the laws and customs of the Christian community united to celebrate the Eucharist, which becomes the subject of the eucharistic celebration, indeed the privileged means of their union—and a bringing back to the central place the true subject of the eucharistic celebration, which is Jesus Christ in Person. The structure of the liturgical tradition, which the Church of the Council has received as well, safeguards the rights of Christ and the presence of Christ. And so, all that is done to extenuate or reduce consciousness of the presence of Christ in favor of the modality in which the community is present, is a complete loss of the liturgy’s value, its ontological value—as Don Giussani would say—and accordingly of its methodological and educative value. When the first phase of the reform by Vatican Council II was in full swing, a highly placed person at the Vatican—I cannot tell you who, but it is true because I read it with my own eyes—wrote that now finally the celebration of Mass was returning to being “a healthy arena for Catholic socialization.” The memory of the presence of Christ, Who dies and rises again, Who creates a new people, Who sustains and sends them forth on mission: “a healthy arena for Catholic socialization.”

– Can you at least say that it was from a level higher than Bugnini?
“A much higher level than Bugnini.”

Read, digest, discuss.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged Ecclesia Dei adflicta, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
31 Comments

Grumbling about Anglicanorum coetibus

Posted on 31 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

With the provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus, Benedict XVI (the Pope of Christian Unity) opened a door for and gave a place to Anglicans who desired unity with the Bishop of Rome in the Catholic communion. Certainly they were distressed by the tomfoolery going on the Anglican Communion, but they ultimately made a positive decision for union with Rome rather than negative decisions, as a reaction against the Anglican implosion.

I saw this on the site of the UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald. William Oddie reports on a BBC interview which was obviously skewed against Pope Benedict and Anglicanorum coetibus. I think an 8 year old would find Tina Beattie’s argument here absurd to the point of being risible.

Read and chuckle (my emphases and comments).

[BBC’s] Edward Stourton: Do all Britain’s Roman Catholics welcome the ordinariate, the body set up by Pope Benedict to allow disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their own traditions. No, is the short answer. Tina Beattie teaches Catholic studies at Roehampton University and, Tina Beattie, your problem with this is what?

Tina Beattie : Well, I don’t want to call it a problem, but I think many of us are perplexed about what this means in terms of the Catholic Communion, and indeed obviously for relations between our two Churches. The Catholic Church has a unity that’s not based on likemindedness or sameness, and it’s very puzzling to know how this very homogenous, small group of likeminded people, offered a quasi-independent place within the Catholic Communion, is going to fit in and become part of us. [?!?]

Stourton: And is your objection partly to do with the fact that you don’t like what they stand for? Particularly on the question of women’s role in the Church?

Beattie: I’m not happy about that, no. And I think actually, dare I say it, it’s a peculiarly Protestant thing to join a church because of what one doesn’t like, as a gesture of protest – that’s where the word comes from. It would be wonderful if they were coming in for the positives, and the joy, and the wonders of being part of this worldwide Communion.

They did formally adhere to the teachings in Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Posted in Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged Anglicanorum coetibus
27 Comments

Evening activities

Posted on 30 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I am at Our Savior on Park Avenue to hear a talk by the German writer Martin Mosebach.

Posted in On the road, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM |
9 Comments

Today’s TLM sounds (some excerpts)

Posted on 30 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Here are some audio clips, stitched together, from Holy Mass this morning at Holy Innocents in NYC. This was a Sung Mass in the Extraordinary Form. We were happy to have good polyphony and Gregorian chant … as there is every Sunday.

I left a period of silence leading up to the consecration. Silence is a necessary part of our worship.

This was made from a small digital recorder in the edge of the pulpit, so don’t expect good balance between celebrant at the altar and pulpit, and also the choir in the loft.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

After Mass!

There was the Holy Innocents’ version of coffee and doughnuts.

There were also empanadas and bagels with schmeer and fresh croissants.

To wash it down…. Mystic Monk Coffee!

TLM and Mystic Monk with all these goodies.

If you are in NYC why aren’t you at this Mass on Sundays?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
15 Comments

Sunday Supper: China Town edition

Posted on 30 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I am in Manhattan and eating with a friend in Chinatown at Shanghai Asian Manor (next to Transfiguration Church).

I am picky about Soup Dumplings.

These were good!

Then we had fried dumplings.

On to the Shredded Pork with Dried Bean Curd.

Back into the snowy streets…

And we visited San Genaro.

And back to Holy Innocents for Vespers.

Posted in Lighter fare, On the road, SESSIUNCULA |
15 Comments

WDTPRS: Wherein Fr. Z rambles about the Collect for the 4th Ordinary Sunday, or, “All you need is love”.

Posted on 29 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today’s prayer was not in the post-Tridentine editions of the Missale Romanum but it does have its origin in the Leonine Sacramentary or, as it is better titled by its editor, the scholarly L. Cunibert Mohlberg, the Veronese Sacramentary.

Were you to hear this prayer intoned in Latin, or at least in an accurate translation, you would be thereby transported back 1500 years to our most Roman of Catholic roots.

COLLECT – LATIN TEXT (2002MR):
Concede nobis, Domine Deus noster,
ut te tota mente veneremur,
et omnes homines rationabili diligamus affectu.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord our God,
help us to love you with all our hearts
and to love all men as you love them.

Is this what the Latin really says?

[…]

SLAVISHLY LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Grant us, O Lord our God,
that we may venerate you with our whole mind,
and may love all men with rational good-will.

“Affection” just doesn’t cut it for affectus and something more pointed than “love” is needed too. I came up with “rational good-will”. We mustn’t reduce all these complicated Latin words to “love”. Why not? Note in the prayer the contrast of the themes “reason” and “mood”, the rational with the affective dimension (concerning emotions) of man; in short, the head and the heart. The fact is, a properly functioning person conducts his life according to both head and heart, feelings under the control of reason and the will. The terrible wound to our human nature from original sin causes the difficulty we have in governing feelings and appetites by reason and will.

Today’s prayer aims at the totality of a human person: our wholeness is defined by our relationship with God.

We seek to know God so that we may the better love Him and His love drives us all the more to know Him. Furthermore, possible theological and Scriptural underpinnings of this prayer are Deuteronomy 6 and Jesus’ two-fold command to love God and neighbor: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (cf. Matthew 22:36-38; Mark 12:2-31; Luke 10:26-28). In Deut 6:5-6 we have the great injunction called the Shema from the first Hebrew word, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might….” Jesus teaches the meaning and expands the concrete application of this command in Deuteronomy 6.

There is no space here for the subtle relationships between the Latin words St. Jerome chose in his translations and the Greek or Hebrew originals of these verses. Suffice it to say that in the Bible the language about mind, heart, and soul is terrifically complex. However, these words aim at the totality of the person precisely in that dimension which is characteristic of man as “image of God”. Heart, mind and will distinguish us from brute animals. We are made to act as God acts: to know, will and love. Thus, “mind” and “heart” in man are closely related faculties and cannot be separated from each other. Mind and heart are revealed in and expressed through our bodies and thus they point at the “real us”.

Love is at the heart of who we are and it the key to our prayer today.

We are commanded by God the Father and God Incarnate Jesus Christ to love both God and our fellow man and God the indwelling Holy Spirit makes this possible. But the word and therefore concept of “love” is understood in many ways and today, especially, it is misunderstood. “Love” frequently refers to people or stuff we like or enjoy using. Bob can “love” his new SUV. Besty “loves” her new kitten. We all certainly “love” baseball and spaghetti. But “love” can refer to the emotional and affections people have when they are “in love” or, as I sometimes call it, “in luv”. Luv is usually an ooey-gooey feeling, a romantic “love” sometimes growing out of lust. This gooey romantic “love” now dominates Western culture, alas. The result is that when “feelings” change or the object of “luv” is no longer enjoyable or useable, someone gets dumped, often for a newer, richer, or prettier model.

There some other flavors of “love” you can come up with, I’m sure. But Christians, indeed every image of God in all times everywhere, are called to a higher love, the love in today’s prayer, which is charity: the grace-completed virtue enabling us to love God for His own sake and love all who are made in His image. This is more than benevolence or tolerance or desire or enjoyment of use. True love is not merely a response to an appetite, as when we might see a beautiful member of the opposite sex, a well-turned double-play, or a plate of spaghetti all’amatriciana. True love, charity, isn’t the sloppy gazing of passion drunk sweethearts or the rubbish we see on TV and in movies (luv). Charity is the grace filled adhesion of our will to an object (really a person) which has been grasped by our intellect to be good.

The love invoked in our prayer is an act of will based on reason. It is a choice – not a feeling.

Charity delights in and longs for the good of the other more than one’s own. The theological virtue charity involves grace. It enables sacrifices, any kind of sacrifice for the authentic good of another discerned with reason (not a false good and not “use” of the other). We can choose even to love an enemy. This love resembles the sacrificial love of Christ on His Cross who offered Himself up for the good of His spouse, the Church. Rationabilis affectus reflects what it is to be truly human, made in God’s image and likeness, with faculties of willing and knowing and, therefore, loving.

Knowledge and love are interconnected.

The more you get to know a person, the more reason you have to love him (remember… love seeks the other person’s good in charity even if a person is unlikable). Reciprocally, the more you love someone or (in the generic sense of love) something, the more you want to know about him and spend time getting to know him.

For example, Billy is fascinated by bugs. From this “love” for bugs Billy wants to know everything there is to know about them. He works hard to learn and thus launches a brilliant career in entomology. Given Our Creator’s priority in all things, how much more ought we seek to know and love God first and foremost of all and then, in proper order, know and love God’s images, our neighbors? He is far more important that the bugs He created. Even spouses must love God more than they love each other. Only then can they love each other properly according to God’s plan.

We also have a relationship with the objects of both love and knowledge. What sort of relationship? With bugs or spaghetti it is one thing, but with God and neighbor it is entirely another.

In seeking to understand and love God more and more we come to understand things about God and ourselves as his images that, without love, we could never learn by simple study. The relationship with God through love and knowledge changes us. St. Bonaventure (+1274) the “Seraphic” doctor wrote about “ecstatic knowledge”. This kind of knowledge is not merely the product of abstract investigation or analytical study (like Billy with his bugs). Rather, it comes first from learning and then contemplating. According to Bonaventure, by contemplation the knower becomes engaged with the object. Fascinated by it, he seeks to know it with a longing that draws him into the object.

Consider: we can study about God and our faith, but really the object of study is not just things to learn or formulas to memorize: the object of our study and faith is a divine Person in whose image and likeness we ourselves are made. To be who we are by our nature we personally need the sort of knowledge of God that draws us into Him. Knowledge of God (not just things learned about God) reaches into us, seizes us, transforms us. To experience God’s love is to have certain knowledge of God, more certain than any knowledge which can be arrived at by means of mere rational examination.

Bring this all with you back to the last line of our prayer and the command to love our neighbor, all of them made in God’s image and all individually intriguing – fascinating, in a way that resembles the way we love God and ourselves. This we are to do with our minds, hearts, and all our strength.

FINAL CORRECTED TRANSLATION WE WILL SOON BE ABLE TO HAVE INSTEAD OF THE LAME-DUCK VERSION:
Grant us, Lord our God,
that we may honor you with all our mind,
and love everyone in truth of heart.

Posted in WDTPRS |
14 Comments

QUAERITUR: I haven’t been to confession for 10 years! I don’t know what to do!

Posted on 29 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I haven’t been to Confession in 10 years, and I’ve only gone three times back when I was still in grade school. It’s possible I wasn’t catechized in the sacrament properly because I don’t recall requiring the Act of Contrition, saying any lines for my first two Confessions, nor the proper format for confessing sins.

My last Confession was in a high school theatre and the priest kept tersely correcting me when I confessed my sins wrong, and seemed quite annoyed he had to walk me through it. Now the thought of going makes me anxious to the point I feel ill.

I’ve scoured the internet for guides to confession and examinations of conscience, as well as reviewed your 20 tips, but I’m still unsure about some things.

1. What EXACTLY is the proper way to confess sins, while still being brief at the same time? By Commandment (ie: “Took the Lord’s name in vain X amount of times)? Or by specifics (ie: received communion while not in a state of grace X amount of times)? Something Else?

2. What do you recommend I do if I can’t even hazard a reasonable estimate of how many times I did something?

3. If committing a mortal sin happens so often because it became a habit, is it still a mortal sin?

Before anything else, I am very glad that you are aware of your need to go to confession and you are striving to do it right.

Please know, friend, that going to confession is not supposed to be like being stretched on the rack. Yes, it is hard. Yes, you accuse yourself of sins. Yes, you should be thorough and that can be painful. But… think of the relief afterward.

Even if you don’t think you are wholly “knowledgeable” about what to do, go anyway. The priest can help if you get stuck. 99.9% of priests are going to be pretty careful with you. Just explain that it has been a long time and that you are nervous. He’ll hear that.

1) There is no specific method of confessing or of examining your conscience, which is more to the point. You can use the commandments. That is a standard way. You can go with virtues and vices. I think examens using the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, are pretty complete. Perhaps that would be the easiest. You could simply say that you sinned against the, say, 4th Commandment X times. However, sometimes you may need to add details or circumstances that made it worse. For example, you can sin against the 7th Commandment by stealing a candy bar, stealing Bill Gate’s Porsche, or stealing a little old widow’s monthly pension. If you are starving, running from an Islamic terrorist hit squad, or… well… I can’t think of a good reason to steal a widow’s pension at the moment, unless it is to buy Mystic Monk Coffee … no… not that either… these are details that need to be included. Also, if you stole a candy bar once or 634 times, that is something you need to mention. Get the idea?

2) It is necessary to confess sins in kind and number, what the sin was and how many times you did it. The number does make a difference. That said, we have bad memories. Just do your best, friend and don’t torture yourself. Ten years is a long time. If you can’t think of numbers of times, go with something like an frequency, or an average per month, per year. Something like that. If you still can’t get at it, use something like “very rarely”, “really often”, “constantly”. That sort of thing. God knows that you are doing your best and, in examining your conscience, you are still giving yourself and the priest a sense of the problem you may or may not have with a particular sin.

3) Sometimes when a sin is deeply ingrained or habitual there is a sense in which the guilt of that sin can be a bit less. That doesn’t mean that you are not committing a sin. Furthermore, when you know that you are sinning, you have the responsibility to do something about it. We can’t excuse ourselves saying, “I can’t help it!”, and then continue as if it suddenly is okay to do it because we struggled over it for a little bit. This is one of the hard parts of the spiritual life: we have to be willing to suffer, plain and simple. Saying “no” to ourselves can make us suffer. But knowing that we are going to suffer ahead of time could help us get our heads into the right place and make some plans before hand, so when the hard part starts, we are not just twisting in the wind. If you know that X is a big problem and that you had better stop X-ing, make a plan so that when you recognize you are on the verge of X-ing, your pre-arranged plan will kick in and you will Y instead. This can help.

Finally, it really does help to memorize a regular patter or routine for what to say. That structure will make it easier!

Take it easy friend.

If you forget something, but you did your best during the confession itself, don’t fret. Mentioned it the next time you go. God knows you did your best and He doesn’t expect the impossible.

You’ll be okay. Just go. And if you think you may need a little time, make an appointment with the priest, even to meet at the confessional if you don’t want to do the face to face thing.

Give it a shot, please.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged confession, penance, reconciliation, sacrament of penance
Comments Off

Please.. someone tell me this is an early April Fool’s gag.

Posted on 29 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I hope this isn’t true.

A tip of the biretta to Jimmy Akin, o{]:¬\ though this is on NPR:

Priest Known As ‘Father Oprah’ To Get Fox Show [Say it ain’t so.]

by The Associated Press

MIAMI January 25, 2011, 05:41 pm ET

A former Roman Catholic priest who left the church to marry his girlfriend after the two were photographed embracing on a South Florida beach is getting a new TV show.

Alberto Cutie (KOO’-tee-ay) announced Tuesday he will host the daily talk show “Father Albert” on Fox stations. A Fox spokeswoman says the show will be aired later this year in cities including New York and Los Angeles. It will be picked up nationwide if it does well.

Cutie, nicknamed “Father Oprah,” changed his affiliation last year to the Episcopal Church. He and his wife welcomed their first child in December.

Fox Television Stations and Debmar-Mercury are co-producing the show. Cutie got his nickname because of an earlier show he hosted on the Spanish-language Telemundo Network.

This would be a bad thing. WDTPRS would have to be firmly against this.

I take it that this isn’t Fox News. It would be the regular Fox channel.

If that priest wanted out… fine. There’s the door. Fly! Be free! Hasta la vista.

But WDTPRS would be against this.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged Too stupid for words
62 Comments

NEW WDTPRS MUG – Newman “To be deep in history”

Posted on 28 January 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The other day I was having a skype conversation with His Hermeneuticalness himself, Fr. Tim Finigan. He mentioned Bl. John Henry Newman’s phrase “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Thinking back on the course of my own conversion, the elements which made it easier to take the plunge, and considering the present project of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and remembering that Benedict XVI not long ago beatified John Henry Newman…. I put the phrase on a coffee mug.

I ordered one for myself to see if it worked out well. I like it a lot. I will probably add some other items later, but I wanted to get mugs out there so that you can fill them with Mystic Monk Coffee as soon as humanly possible.

Here is a shot of the regular sized coffee mug… I’ll bet you could put your yogurt and granola in it too.

Click the image to go to the cafepress store.

A shot of the larger coffee mug.. I’ll bet that you could put hot chocolate in it too.

You see that for this mug I really wrapped the design across most of its surface.

Here is the largest mug, the stein. I suspect that this might be coaxed into holding a beer.

The image itself (it’s larger on the mugs):

Here are three shots of the ur-mug, the larger coffee mug. It is made from the same durable stuff I have been punishing for years in the microwave and dishwasher.

After years of treating these things with great brutality in the nuclear reactor and the bottom rack of the washer near the heat, I have succeeded in getting a crack in one of them, cosmetic, but not fatal.

It might start a conversation. But I suggest that before flashing it about, you might brush up on why being deep in history leads to the Catholic Church.

You can find all the links you need to Z-stuff here.